Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: milo_morai who wrote (89019)	1/22/2000 7:04:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572768

milo - <So Its my understanding INTC was more comfortable choosing this route as it's something they understand better.> It is my understanding that Intel went this route because incurring the costs of Copper at .18 was deemed an unnecessary expense, and a waste of bandwidth since the performance gains were practically non-existant. <Like I said AMD will be 12months ahead on Copper and should have a easy transition from 180nM to 130nM.> This is sort of silly, IMO, and you still ignore the argument of tool maturity vs. production. Intel has had a Cu pilot for several years, knowing it would want to go to Copper at some point. That point is .13, because it makes sense for Intel's methodologies. Intel will implement a Greenfield .13 Cu process. I still don't get why you are so sure that MOT/AMD has this huge advantage? I will concede that they will have had some what more experience with the Copper itself in manufacturing. This fact, however, is not that intimidating. As I've said, Intel has had a Cu pilot for several years. I will concede that you think MOT /AMD has the advantage for some reason. Impasse. PB